|Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #047
In This Issue:
Exegesis Digest Thu, 28 Mar 2002
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:10:28 +0100
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #45
> >Lois Cruz wrote
> >>This then seems to be saying that astrology is a relativist subjective
> >>approach to being.
> >Ultimately there IS no other approach to being, so such a view of astrology
> >seems appropriate.
You misunderstand: my 'being' = Dasein. Actuality. Concrete. Inner and Outer. Whatever you call it, I call it the real world, not pink elephants dancing in a swimming pool.
> >The weight of science, history, tradition, authority may
> >give the illusions of objectivity and of some kind of unchanging
> >"absolute", but in the end it probably *is* all illusion, consensual or
> >individual. We seem to live in a Democratic Universe--the
> >perceptions/conceptions with the widest and most long-lasting agreement,
There is a very dangerous and widespread cancer currently chewing its chud in astrological theorising: the post-modern relativist sham. This probably springs from two seemingly sybilline sources: 1] a misunderstanding of particle physics, where a nano-moment of relativity (Dasein/ nul Dasein) does existence in the interaction of sub-atomic particles; some are wont to think this then applies to everything and the universe and all meaning and Dasein. False. 2] just to be trendy with the latest academic fashion, which was more or less booted out about 20 years ago, except in some sociology departments. (Sociologists are philosophers without any backbone, great grape jellies of the mind-world.) Some astrologers chase the boojums of the academics, first the psychological phantasies of Viennese third-class thinkers who seem to have forgotten to read Plato somewhere in their education, then the bubble-bath of the New Age, and now the shimmering relativity and subjectivity. This is to admit, tacitly that the skeptics are absolutely correct about astrology: it is a sham, a pseudo-science, no matter how good it is at cross-dressing and drag, putting on all the pretty feathers of subjectivity, relativity etc, it still babbles.
Secondly there is no democracy in knowledge, 'science', nor, better put scientific methodology: what counts is the rigourous logical argumentation of the evidenciary congruence. We don't vote, we are persuaded, convinced, shown, proved to the point of acceptance. The oft-heard, "I feel" is a phrase one should use to one's medic when one is in a state of somatic disfunction, not when one discusses the real world amongst intelligent company. I often reminded my students: I am not in the least interested in what they 'feel' but very interested in why they think what they do, and how they can justify such thoughts as they might, from time to time, summon the energy to produce!
> >>The ulitmate form of this
> >>expression is a tantrum of boundless egoism and turf
> >>protection/expansion (=NE unbridled).
> >This is a human condition, and certainly not limited to any particular
> >paradigm, point-of-view or mode of consciousness. Academia itself--the
> >ultimate in rationality and "objectivity"--is rather notable for such
> >"egoism and turf protection/expansion".
Which is precisely why such subjectivity must be weeded out, recognised and neutralised. Bias, bigotry, subjectivism, relativism are all distortions. It's no good complaining that your sour grapes are still less green than those under the ivy walls. Even if in so doing you raise red herrings.
> >>The retreat into subjectivism is a
> >>way (called passive aggressive) of protecting the individual from social
> >>contact, from dialogue and compromise.
> >So is the retreat into objectivism. The keyword here is "retreat", not
> >whatever the refuge may be.
Meaning that both are relatively Good Things? What does that mean? I think I have made it quite clear what the difference between the openness and validity of the methodological 'scientific' (=knowledgable) dialogue and the idoiolexic space of the subjective: see below too.
> >>It is a testing of the
> >>validity of the intuition. Statements such as 'Margaret Thatcher was the
> >>King of Belgium who fought Napoleon' may be intuitive, but are open to
> >>challenge if they are to be validly used as paradigms or even statements
> >>of perceptive intution. It may be that such a statement is symbolically
> >>meanful and true to an inidividual, but whether this is able to be a
> >>part of a dialogue with another individual is somewhat of a moot point.
> >Yes! This is an aspect of the beauty and value of rationality--it provides
> >us the means to test and prove perceptions and conceptions of worth, and
> >can help us to reach agreement (the value of which is worthy of an essay of
> >its own ;-).
> >>Magic is the stuff of subjectively orientated projection.
> >And "reality" is the stuff of collectively oriented projection.
So say you. But is this a relatively subjective viewpoint or one which is born of rational selection? Why do you call reality projection? Here's a test. Chew through your computor's electrical supply flex, and see if it still functions normally.
> >>To exalt the qualities of one
> >>aspect (intuition) over the other is to fall into individualism, which
> >>is the breaking of the unity of the entity, which is a triparate entity
> >>of individualisation, collectivity and process.
> >Given this statement, it seems strange to me then that you speak so
> >disparagingly of intuition and intuitive understanding, dismissing them as
> >of little worth and definitely on a lower rung of an apparently
> >hierarchical mental ladder.
We are beings in a real world. The subjective is nice for procreation and recreation, and choosing one's dinner from the menu (de gustibus non disputandum est), but beyond that it is to be weeded out of knowledge.
> >>I would view astrology from a much more mundane and humble level: it is
> >>a technique, based on a correlation of time space coordinates as
> >>expressed in simple mathematical terms which can perhaps give _an_
> >>insight into the possible expression or manifestation of matter in time
> >>and at a location.
> >It is pretty wondrous to me that the system of astrology is a big enough
> >mirror to accurately reflect both your view and Roger's. Fractals,
> >holograms and mirrors seem like good analogs to astrology. If one could
> >concede the possibility that astrology is bigger than any one person's
> >ability to understand, then one might begin to take a less rigid position
> >on definitions. With increased mental flexibility, one might understand
> >that it's not the *system* that changes into something else with the change
> >of perspective.
Except for the fact that astrologers oft spout much nonsense. Analogic thinking is another of the boojums which are currently infesting astrological theory.
> >Trying to frame my thoughts here, I've come up with a kind of tangential
> >question (or two): Does astrology shape *us*, or do we shape astrology, or
> >some combination of both?
This is the same question as 'does the language we speak and think in form our thoughts or are we the sole begetters of our thoughts?' Big question. Recent discussion see: http://sciam.rsc03.net/servlet/cc?lJpDUWEshkLgShDltLkpsshFPhksKgLmDHmmDgLmE0EXCA
One would need to distinguish between the forces, energies or whatever they be, which are paradigmaticly given mathematical formulation by the knowledge system of astrology and the knowledge system of astrology itself. In other words, planets & co. are with or without astrologers to hear the trees crashing in the forest.
> >The answers to this may depend on whether one
> >considers astrology to be merely and purely a human "invention". (I
And what field of human knowledge and study is not a human invention? I don't see this objection as profound, merely banal.
> >realize there may be semantic problems with my question, but hope it points
> >sufficiently clearly to the idea behind it for the idea rather than the
> >semantics to be addressed) Second question: *Is* astrology an "absolute"
> >such that there must be one and only one clear definition? (IOW, must your
> >and Roger's views of what astrology is be mutually exclusive?)
> >>This would mean I think that one has decided not to dialogue with the
> >>real world but to magically inhabit a space of idiolexic monologue.
> >"Idiolexic monologue" is not a "space", and has no absolute or independent
Ah, but it does in the minds of the truly subjective. It is the only space they will occupy. Why does no one understand English anylonger?
> >This is the problem I see with the "real world". We use words
> >and rationality to define "it", forgetting that both our words and our
> >rationality are imperfect and incomplete, and thereby limit and restrict
> >*ourselves* to the mental boxes we create. Intuition is our way (or at
> >least one way) out of the boxes.
No, intuition is _only_ a spark, Edison's one percent. Testing, logic, facts, testing, evidence, logic and reasoned rigourous argumentation is the way to keep the fires of knowledge burning as the darkness brings the hoary barabarians of subjectivity encircling about the camp of civilisation, intent on snuffing the Promethean Flare.
The point of rationality and scientific methodology is to weed out the cancer of subjectivity, that twisted, biased, bigoted, self-serving monster of idiolexic monologue.
> >>Critical thought, historical
> >>perspective, contextualisation, linguistic comparison and
> >>intertextuality, verfication by means of definition, experimentation and
> >>methodological rigour are a way to exit from the (false)monologue of
> >I agree that these are very useful *tools*, but the craftsman is master of
> >his tools, not vice versa.
My point is that the astrologer who is not master of these tools is not master of his techne.
> >Maybe it is "dangerous" to venture beyond the
> >tools we have for shaping consensus reality, but that is how new ground is
> >cleared and new tools invented--it is how we expand consensus reality, imo.
It is especially dangerous when the tools have not been mastered. And, no, it is not the only way to venture beyond the unlimitations of reality. Galileo for instance came to his theory of gravity by pure logical deduction, not experimentation. Kwel!
> >"Itself" may at some point actually be the itself of one's ...
> >My early personal experience of astrology, as a pseudoscience...
Rog, Thank you for your confessional artistic credo cum apologia.
I find that it is not good manners to comment upon examples of this contemporary fashion in American writing. One simply takes it or leaves it, as one does any highly personal statement or gospel.
However, I would note that there is a great difference between an artist and an astrologer, even on the most basic lexicographical level.
[[ I shall be away for a week, so replies will be delayed. May the list memebers enjoy the holidays in their variopinted fashions. ]]
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:20:28 +0100
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #46
Patric Guinard ha scritto:
> >What is the REAL world?
Both the hard things that go bump in the night and the rigourous dialogue between the individual and the non-individual * in a rational process of mutual definition shared between individuals, based on a logic and rationality which is evidenciarily congruent, and/or that which is limited and dies.
* by this I mean that with is 'other': be that other individuals or ideas or 'things.'
> >By giving consulations, with his clients, the commun astrologer is adapted to the
> >REAL social world -- which is the money-financial-pragmatist world. And what's the
> >difference between an astrologer & a psychoanalist?
A Degree. What of mundane astrology, a field I find much more stable, or financial astrology? Not everything is psychological. Perhaps only the butterflies are. I would reject a definition of astrology which can only emcompass itself in terms of human psychology.
> >The world of academy is an protected appendice inside, ideologically oriented, the
> >"faire-valoir" of the "real" business increasing world, and also (it's true) a
> >rather bigger community than the astrological one. Just a question of quantity. You
> >seem to ignore, Lorenzo, the advent, here or there, of a real astrological thought.
I was responding to a specific post. I cannot at all times, although it should be possible in the future, keep the entire universe of astrological theory at my finger tips. Of course, I know the difference between the very few real thinkers in astrological circles and the mass produced boojums of the democratic majority. The real thinkers are perhaps 100-200 in the world, the real world that is!
> >Individualistic? Not an invention of astrologers! Just a "quality" of modernity.
> >But paradoxically, modern thought is precisely unable to think the person, nor the
> >psyche (in fact it doesn't exist for it such a thing!): So it could be that modern
> >astrology is filling the gap.
Ah, astrology as 'the god of the gaps.' Surely there is no need for that, for that would be a further retreat into subjectivism, and astrology should be able to do better than that. Again I do not think that astrology is essentially, or uniquely, about the psyche, but about the nexus of matter and time, the real world.
> >Personally, I've not found that academy has been able, up to now, to answer properly
> >to the astrological question (only by silence, suppression of dissidents, biaised
> >research & ...)
The question is not about the academy, I would think, but about the disorder amongst astrologers and their methodological presentation.
End of exegesis Digest V7 #47
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.